alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Tex as a t Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00132

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- 006884

- 1

Before Kerr, Bi rdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opi nion by Justice Kerr



### S AMANTHA 

### P. B LAIR 

### , Appellant

V


### . V ICTORIA 

### H UTCHISON 

### , Appellee2 MEMORAN DUM OPINION
Samantha P. B lair att empt s to appeal from the trial court ’ s “ O r der Granting
Motion for Reinstatement

. ” See Tex. R. Civ

. P. 165a(3).
W e h ave jurisdiction over appeals from fin al judgmen ts and from certain
in terlocuto ry orders ma de ap peal able by s tatute. See Lehman n v. H ar
- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001 ). Whe n, as here, an order doe s not dispose of all pending parties and claims, th e orde r is interlocutory , an d unless a st at utory ex ception appl ies, the order i s unappe alable until the tr ial court signs a fin al judgment

. See Bally
Total F itness Corp

. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Lehman n , 39 S.W.3d at 195 ; Jack B. Anglin Co., I n c. v. Tipps , 842 S.W .2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (o rig.
procee ding ). “ No st atute permits an appeal of a n interlocutory order gra nt ing a
motion to reinstate under Rule 165a(3). ” Marvin v. Schneider , No. 14

- 20

- 00338

- CV, 2020 WL 5552809, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 1 7, 2020, no pet.) ( per curiam) (mem. o p.) ; see Hale v. Mothershe d , 715 S .W.2d 1 34, 135 (Tex. App.

— Te xark an a 1986 , no writ )

. We notified Bla ir of our concern that we lack ed juris diction over this appeal
b ecause the orde r did not ap pe ar to be a f inal judgme n t or appealable order

. We
i nfo rmed her that unless s he o r any party desirin g t o continue the ap peal filed a
response wi thin te n days showing grounds for continui ng the appea l, we wou ld
dismiss it for wa nt of jurisdiction

. S ee T e x. R. App. P. 42. 3(a), 44.3. We have received
no respon se .3 Because the trial court ’ s “ O r der Granting Mot i on for Rein stat em ent ” is neither a final judgment nor an appe alable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr E lizabeth Kerr Justic e Delivered: June 24, 2021

1 B lair might be able to c hallenge the reinst atement o rder th rough other avenu es. See , e.g. , Es ta te of H owley v. Haberman , 878 S.W. 2d 139, 140 ( Tex. 1994) (orig

. proceeding) ; Mem ’l Hosp. of Galveston Cty

. v. Gilli s , 741 S.W.2d 364, 36 5

– 66 (T ex. 1987) ; In re Gen. Motors Corp. , 296 S .W.3d 813, 829

– 30 (Tex . App

. — Au stin 2009, orig. proceed ing) ; S . Main Ban k v. Wittig , 909 S.W.2d 243, 244 (Tex. A p p.

— Houston [ 14 th Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding) ; cf. Ingram v. Ingram , No. 02

- 14

- 00063

- CV, 2014 WL 1510049, at *1 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth Apr. 17 , 2014, no pet.) (per c uria m) ( mem. op.)

.
(logo) DIXON HUGHES GOODMANLLP

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Managers ofC-III Capital Partners LLC, the 

Sole Member of C-III AssetManagement LLC:

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment ofCompliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that C-III AssetManagement LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forall transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first liencommercial mortgage loans (the “Platform”) as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii),1122(d)(3)(1) – 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix)and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to theactivities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards established by the American Instituteof Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence supporting management’s assertion and performing such otherprocedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 is fairlystated, in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP

 

Asheville, North Carolina

February 6, 2017
Case: 2:12-cv-00844-EAS-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 04/23/13 Page: 1 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00844-EAS-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 04/23/13 Page: 2 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00844-EAS-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 04/23/13 Page: 3 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T18:29:58-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7538]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than May 7, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Randall R. Schwartz, Orland Park, Illinois; Susan M. Schwartz, 
Orland Park, Illinois; Richard H. Schwartz, Lemont, Illinois; Esther V. 
Schwartz, Lemont, Illinois; Clarence J. Ludwig, Sarasota, Florida; Mary 
Lou Ludwig, Sarasota, Florida; William D. Ludwig, Lincoln, Nebraska, 
Linda S. Macaskill, Sarasota, Florida; and John D. Macaskill, Sarasota, 
Florida; to retain at least 25 percent of the voting shares of First 
Personal Financial Corp., Orland Park, Illinois, and thereby indirectly 
retain voting shares of First Personal Bank, Orland Park, Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Richard W. Willhour, Jr., Inola, Oklahoma; and Tommy L. Woods, 
Tulsa, Oklahoma, to individually control, and by Richard W. Willhour, 
Jr., Inola, Oklahoma; Tommy L. Woods, Thomas J. O'Brien, Matthew Q. 
Klimisch, and John R. Woolman, all of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Stephen M. 
Murphy and Curtis L. Roberts, both of Jenks, Oklahoma, all acting as a 
group in concert to acquire voting shares of CNBO Bancorp, Inc., Pryor, 
Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Century 
National Bank of Oklahoma, Pryor, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 17, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-7538 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 402 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 402

    Designating the first day of April 2006 as ``National Asbestos 
                            Awareness Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2006

 Mr. Reid submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating the first day of April 2006 as ``National Asbestos 
                            Awareness Day''.

Whereas dangerous asbestos fibers are invisible and cannot be smelled or tasted;
Whereas the inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers can cause significant damage;
Whereas these fibers can cause mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other health 
        problems;
Whereas asbestos-related diseases can take 10 to 50 years to present themselves;
Whereas the expected survival time for those diagnosed with mesothelioma is 
        between 6 and 24 months;
Whereas generally little is known about late stage treatment and there is no 
        cure for asbestos-related diseases;
Whereas early detection of asbestos-related diseases may give some patients 
        increased treatment options and might improve their prognosis;
Whereas the United States has substantially reduced its consumption of asbestos 
        yet continues to consume almost 7,000 metric tons of the fibrous mineral 
        for use in certain products throughout the Nation;
Whereas asbestos-related diseases have killed thousands of people in the United 
        States;
Whereas asbestos exposures continue and safety and prevention will reduce and 
        has reduced significantly asbestos exposure and asbestos-related 
        diseases;
Whereas asbestos has been a cause of occupational cancer;
Whereas thousands of workers in the United States face significant asbestos 
        exposure;
Whereas thousands of Americans die from asbestos-related diseases every year;
Whereas a significant percentage of all asbestos-related disease victims were 
        exposed to asbestos on naval ships and in shipyards;
Whereas asbestos was used in the construction of a significant number of office 
        buildings and public facilities built before 1975; and
Whereas the establishment of a ``National Asbestos Awareness Day'' would raise 
        public awareness about the prevalence of asbestos-related diseases and 
        the dangers of asbestos exposure: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates the first day of April 2006 as 
``National Asbestos Awareness Day''.
                                 <all>
```
SCWC-18-0000948

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF N.F. AND A.F. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000948; CASE NO. FC-S NO. 17-00211)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed

on February 7, 2020, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 6, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000948

06-APR-2020

09:03 AM
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v EDMOND C. SANDERS, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 580, 44 CMR 10

*581No. 24,058

June 4, 1971

*Lieutenant David M. Shaw,*JAGO, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGO, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiam:

A variety of irregularities appear in this special court-martial record. They range from the substitution of appointed defense counsel on the day of trial by mimeograph order in which the name of designated counsel was blocked out and another name inked in, without any indication that the change was authorized by the convening authority (cf. United States v Tellier, 13 USCMA 323, 328, 32 CMR 323 (1962)), to conflicting notations as to the persons present at trial and the failure to attach to the transcript certain prosecution exhibits admitted into evidence. See United States v Adame, 20 USCMA 573, 44 CMR 3 (1971). Ordinarily, remand for corrective action would be sufficient. However, the record also discloses a delay of approximately nineteen months in service upon the accused of the decision of the board of review. The approved period of confinement and the probationary period for remission of the bad-conduct discharge have long since expired. The case, therefore, is one that properly can be concluded at this time. United States v Fortune, 20 USCMA 293, 43 CMR 133 (1971); United States v Adame, supra.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside, and the charges are ordered dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM  10-QSB FOR THE NINE  MONTHS  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,  1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                         JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                   2,666,060
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            2,312,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                              1,586,380
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         6,903,686
<PP&E>                                                   1,389,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                             586,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,311,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,421,041
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                     8,243
<OTHER-SE>                                               9,814,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,311,148
<SALES>                                                  2,990,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         3,759,424
<CGS>                                                    1,726,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            1,726,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (1,484,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (1,484,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (1,484,412)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.18)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer**


**pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted**


**pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002** ****







In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NYFIX, Inc. for the
      quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Steven R. Vigliotti, as Chief
      Financial Officer of NYFIX, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to the best of his knowledge the Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NYFIX,
      Inc.







Dated:
      August 28, 2007





By:
                /S/
                Steven R. Vigliotti
              Steven
                R. Vigliotti
              Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of POW! Entertainment,
Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
, the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, that:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results
of operations of the Company as of, and, for the periods presented in the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: October 1, 2013 | By: | /s/ Gill Champion                    
|--------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                      |     | Gill Champion                        
|                      |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9337)

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 8135.

(Decided March 3, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

It is provided by the rules of the court that, in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to *551overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
January 13, 1940

No. 43027.

#### Protest 959794-G of Central Films, Ltd.

C. D. 257. Application by plaintiff for rehearing denied.
September 2, 1942

No. 47528.

#### Protest 44626-K of Oxford University Press.

C. D. 663. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, H. James Serrone, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Torotel, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and we have:

 

a)     designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 daysprior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)     presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies in thedesign or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial dataand have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

 

6.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| /s/ H. James Serrone    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
|                    |
| H. James Serrone        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| December 9,  2005  |

 

----
Before the Second Division,

November 22, 1944

No. 49814.

#### Petition 6050-R of John Carter (Wilmington).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

From a careful examination of the record the court was satisfied that the entry was made without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was granted.
Order entered January 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01537-CR

MARK LYNN MILLIGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-27465-W

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On December 5, 2013, we ordered the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent 

appellant. We have received the trial court’s order appointing April Smith as appellant’s new 

attorney. Accordingly, we DIRECT the Clerk to list April Smith as appellant’s appointed 

attorney of record.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to April 

Smith and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE